We invaded Iraq because they violated international law.

[SAJ]

true,I can kinda understand why Iran would want nukes...Israel has been threatning them for years.

Im not singling you out especialally tuna, but your point illustrates one of the more worrying aspects of the current "Iran mania" .
Namely the way the emphasis has jumped over an important step- veryifying Iran's nuclear ambtions. Nobody can dispute Iran's enrichment activities, indeed they are happy to boast about it on national televison.
What they do deny is that the enrichment process has anything to do with nuclear weapons and as long as the activities are kept to energy related enrichment then they are doing nothing wrong.
The body charged with enforcing nuclear non-proliferation(the IAEA) has been unwilling to declare that Iran is in breach of its NPT (nuclear-non-proliferation) duties, the most damning language they have used is that Iran's activities cannot exclude possible weapon related enrichment program. This is a very important point, that Iran cannot be shown to not be doing something that it shouldnt, they are being asked to prove a negative.

So somehow this has become about Iran's non-existant nuclear weapons rather than the furtive nature of their nuclear program(which is Iran's major transgression against the NPT).
Anybody catching a whiff of deja vu at this point should be congratulated, its exactly how things started with Iraq and their super deadly WMD's of mushroom shaped terror.


Be afraid.

 

[Lemonking]

All Im saying is,that even now where we dont know/can be sure ,that they want nukes,you cant blame them because Israel has been pissing on their heads for the last few years.


PS:dont take that post literal lol

 

[Kyorisu]

America: "Why is our oil under your land?" Most of what the US is doing is about controlling a resource that will be depleted in the next 30 years or so. Alternatives are shunned becuase as soon as you give someone a solar generator they can produce energy for themselves, rather than constantly having to buy more "fuel"

Now that's just dealing with Iraq, Iran and Suadi Arabia.

 

[bbson john]

when you combine the crazy religious belief that killing the infidel west grants you a place in paradise, with the means to do it, you get a dangerous cocktail, No one knows how far away from a nuclear bomb they are, but they are not far from a radiological dirty bomb, they could in theory make one now, it may not have a big bang, but it can kill just as many.

Did they do it? They didn't. Will they do it? No clue, they might, most likely they don't. Even though there is such a possibility (Extremely unlikely, actually), should we fore-stop them? Personally, we shouldn't. They have done nothing wrong until now. They are not guilty because they didn't do it! That they MAY do it is not a reason for punishment. The future is unknown. If we invade it, we put ourselves into injustice.

Like the movie Minority Report

Some people cannot be stopped through diplomacy,the Iranian President is one of them

We were unable to stop USA via UN in the invasion of Iraq. Let's **** off the America!!!

 

[Mr Stabby]

Did they do it? They didn't. Will they do it? No clue, they might, most likely they don't. Even though there is such a possibility (Extremely unlikely, actually), should we fore-stop them? Personally, we shouldn't. They have done nothing wrong until now. They are not guilty because they didn't do it! That they MAY do it is not a reason for punishment. The future is unknown. If we invade it, we put ourselves into injustice.

There is no point settling for a radiological dirty bomb, if you can get a nuclear bomb, Iran is clearly trying to become a major player in the middle east, a nuclear bomb is a status symbol. In theory that's not a bad thing, but the Iranian President, has stated a strong oppostion to Israel's existence, even saying it should be wiped off the face of the earth. When they do get a nuclear bomb the USA, and the UK will not be able to stop them, so it is better to stop them before they get one.

It may sound like crazy rhetoric, but Hitler spouted crazy rhetoric for years, then acted upon it. There is a time for diplomecy, and a time for military intervention, Russian and EU attempts to resolve the situation peacefullly have failed.

Considering the disaster in post-war Iraq, an invasion/regime change is not feasible in Iran, but Iran's nuclear capability must be removed or restricted

Like the movie Minority Report

WTF

We were unable to stop USA via UN in the invasion of Iraq. Let's **** off the America!!!

Two wrongs don't make a right, America was wrong to invade Iraq, It is however irrelevant, Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, the Iranian President is crazy enough to use it

 

[Solaris]

Two wrongs don't make a right, America was wrong to invade Iraq, It is however irrelevant, Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, the Iranian President is crazy enough to use it

The only country in the world to have ever used a Nuclear weapon in anger is the USA.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The power of atomic energy was not well known in 1945, and no-one knew of thre harmful effects of radiation, it was just thought of as a huge bomb, instead of dropping a large amount of conventional ordanace (which they were doing). The US military estimated it would cost 1 million US lives to take mainland Japan, and a higher number of Japanese lives, they believed that the atomic bomb would force Japan to surrender, with an overall lower casualty level, as they were unaware of radiation sickness.

The difference with nuclear weapons now, is that we know the effects of radiation, and the average nuclear bomb is about 8 times more powerful then those used on Nagaski and Hiroshima.

 

[Solaris]

The power of atomic energy was not well known in 1945, and no-one knew of thre harmful effects of radiation, it was just thought of as a huge bomb, instead of dropping a large amount of conventional ordanace (which they were doing). The US military estimated it would cost 1 million US lives to take mainland Japan, and a higher number of Japanese lives, they believed that the atomic bomb would force Japan to surrender, with an overall lower casualty level, as they were unaware of radiation sickness.

Got a source for that?

 

[jverne]

would any body try to explain this

"electro-shock devices in U.S. prisons, shackling of women inmates during childbirth"

to me?

so they were shocking women during birth? did i get it right?!

 

[kirovman]

Not quite:

Shackling

 

[jverne]

Not quite:

Shackling

oh i see...

they just tied them up...

 

[<RJMC>]

is any real proof that claims the USA is doing this for oil?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Not really, no.

It's just one assumption many people have drawn from how all the other big justifications have gone awry.

The other possible reasons are:

-Genuine ineptitude in the interpretation of pre-war intelligence. (This one is mostly discredited.)

-The belief that removing Saddam from power would have a stabilizing effect in the mideast, but that fabrications were needed to get public support for an illegal invasion. (This is closest to the reality and generally accepted as accurate, from what I've seen.)

Oil and Intelligence failures are possible factors in the decision, but everything I've seen indicates that the Iraq war was about mideast peace.
However, they tried to attain that peace through so many falsehoods and inept plans that it was not worth planning in the first place.
There was simply a massive rush to capitalize on the public's sudden anti-terrorist militarism after 9/11.

Sadly for conspiracy theorists, the shoddy rushed nature of the war indicates that the administration had done the exact minimum of planning for the justification and invasion of Iraq.

(See detailed accounts in Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke and Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.)

It was a case of cynical opportunism that backfired terribly.

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla
It was a case of cynical opportunism that backfired terribly.

You pretty much summed it up perfectly right there.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hey, yo, can't be arsed with long discussion, German exam on Tuesday, but I just thought I'd mention here that (apparently) many people in authority in Iraq are shia Muslims already engaged in a sectarian war against the Sunni minority and many have connections (or are actually leaders of) Shia miliatias who are responsible for a hell of a lot of grief. Many of these militias recieve support from Iran. Kinda like if a mafioso got elected mayor of Chicago and continued all his old vendettas using both his old mob and the police forces he is now in command of. The reason these people are in authority is because A. they're the majority and B. the US occupiers are forced to keep them in government because they were there during Saddam's time and are the only ones who can really do the job. Thus, there are people in government who are sending attack forces of interior ministry vehicles against militant Sunni neighbourhoods, causing mucho pain.

 

[SAJ]

The reason these people are in authority is because A. they're the majority and B. the US occupiers are forced to keep them in government because they were there during Saddam's time and are the only ones who can really do the job. Thus, there are people in government who are sending attack forces of interior ministry vehicles against militant Sunni neighbourhoods, causing mucho pain.

Better luck with your german exam 'cos you have got this totally backwards.
It was the Sunni's who were in charge under Saddam, especially members of the baath party who have now been largely purged from positions of power.


And yes, oil figured very high in the reasons for invading Iraq, as did Iran, Israel, Russia and China.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The only country in the world to have ever used a Nuclear weapon in anger is the USA.

It wasn't used in anger. It was to force the Japanese to surrender quicker.

Don't take that as a justification for the act though as I'm sure so many of you would love to do .

 

[Raeven0]

You don't see the difference between being a nut-job and invading Poland?

Heh.
This is an important point.

You don't get to invade Iran just 'cause you think its leader is naughty, you overly militant dickweeds. Go back to the playpen with your GI Joes and let the grown-ups make the decisions.

 

[DreadLord]

I couldn't care less about the current thread topic, but on the World War II thing.. The majority of historians believe Russia would have eventually defeated Germany on its own without American intervention, and even if Britain had fallen. In fact, some American generals wanted to continue into Russia at the end of the war, but it's common concensus that Russia would have easily beat us. Never underestimate the Red Army.

 

[CptStern]

'wipied off the face off the earth', was used in the context of the physical state of Israel, with Israeli in it, I don't think wiping off the face of the earth, sounds like dissolving a political entity

again you're missing the point ..the state of israel or rather the space it occupies should go back to the palestinian people ..that's all he's saying

In Iran, supporters of Ahmadinejad have said that the West has misinterpreted or overreacted to his statements, at times intentionally, in order to smear Iran's image or divert attention away from their own faults or responsibilities. At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed his October speech had been misinterpreted, stating "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." [17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Antagonism_toward_Israel

So, I am aware he was diposed, when it was not necessary,

so what makes this any different, I'm willing to bet that back in march of 2003 you were for the invasion of iraq because saddam was a "threat "

although I am in favour of getting rid of every tyrannical regime in the world, although it's not feasible

yes well that's a nice sentiment ..naive, but nice ..oh and were that the case the US would be on that list

Iraq is irrelevant,

tell that to the 10's of thousands who've died because their country is uninportant

Iran poses a threat to Israel, I think they should be stopped

hmmmm israel has over 200 nukes ..iran has ..0 ..whos the threat to whom?


anyways, not justification to invade and is a war crime

when you combine the crazy religious belief that killing the infidel west grants you a place in paradise,

yes because the majority of suicide bombers are iranian

with the means to do it,

you mean like the chemical weapons they used during the iran-iraq war? why havent they used them since ..if they're such a threat as you cliam surely they would have attacked by now ...right?

if you get a dangerous cocktail, No one knows how far away from a nuclear bomb they are,

yes they do

but they are not far from a radiological dirty bomb, they could in theory make one now, it may not have a big bang, but it can kill just as many.

yes and so can anthrax and any number of chemical agents iran has had for decades ..yet they havent used them ...but according to you and others like you it's not a likelihood it's a certainty ....so why havent they used them before?

The USA has no intention of wiping anybody off the face of the earth, they have had the weapons 60 years, and haven't used them, since the true extent of the dangers of nuclear power were discovered (albeit after Nagaski and Hiroshima)

hmmm lets see, defying international law, invading a nation without provocation, decades worth of coups, death squads, propping up despots, and the only historical use of the world's most devestating weapon ....yes I can see how the US isnt a threat to anyone

 

[bbson john]

I am angry whenever someone says Iraq is irrelevant. I am trying to state a historic event to support my idea. This is a comparison. There will be no discussing if you asy the past events are irrelevant since we cannot just talking unseen future. If you say war in Iraq is irrelevant, I will say you are just trying to blindly ban all the ideas against you.

Back to the main theme, I still arguing that the USA should not take military action against Iran. Though the president of Iran sid he would wipe Israel of the map, this is only what he SAID. Words mean nothing. You may want to say Hitler did the same thing. This does not prove Iran will take the same path. Say, when a child says he want to kill a teacher. Then the child does so in the other day. Does it mean that we have to arrest all the children who say the word "kill"? I thought not. To conclude, we cannot determine whether a person or a country is quilty before it does anything wrong.

 

[Raeven0]

Say, when a child says he want to kill a teacher. Then the child does so in the other day. Does it mean that we have to arrest all the children who say the word "kill"?

For a while, that is exactly what we did. Yay American public schools.

In fact, the kids are still being told to rat on anybody who makes even remotely malicious comments. The justification is that one of them might be true.

Of course, despite what some dipshits here and in the Administration may think, this same concept can't really be applied to international politics...

 

[bbson john]

No wonder why someone from America said that

 

[Kyorisu]

Back to the main theme, I still arguing that the USA should not take military action against Iran.

They won't. Iran is much more powerful. They have many planes, tanks and are capable of ruining several oil transport lines. Think about that.

 

[Mr Stabby]

again you're missing the point ..the state of israel or rather the space it occupies should go back to the palestinian people ..that's all he's saying


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Antagonism_toward_Israel

wikipedia is not a very reputable source anyone can edit it.

I don't doubt there are members of the Iranian regime how would rather Ahmadinejad, didn't try and provoke the west, and apologise for him.

so what makes this any different, I'm willing to bet that back in march of 2003 you were for the invasion of iraq because saddam was a "threat "

No point repeating myself, but Saddam had no weapons even if he did he wouldn't have used them, not every middle eastern despot supports terrorsim, Saddam disliked Bin laden alomst as much as America.

yes well that's a nice sentiment ..naive, but nice ..oh and were that the case the US would be on that list

Hence I said it was infeasible, care to explain how America is such a threat to the world?

tell that to the 10's of thousands who've died because their country is uninportant

Not what I meant at all, the invasion and occuptation of Iraq are irrelevant to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, even France and Germany don't want Iran to obtain nuclear wepons, they oppossed the war in Iraq

hmmmm israel has over 200 nukes ..iran has ..0 ..whos the threat to whom?


anyways, not justification to invade and is a war crime

we're back to 'wiping Israel off the face of the earth' here

Do you believe the invasion of Afganistan was illegal?

yes because the majority of suicide bombers are iranian

Uhh, I know, but the Iranian government are suspected of aiding Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq. there is a difference between a government and it's people espicially when democracy is not fully utilised

you mean like the chemical weapons they used during the iran-iraq war? why havent they used them since ..if they're such a threat as you cliam surely they would have attacked by now ...right?

Chemical weapons are a whole different ballpark to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons kill only a fraction of the people, and the Isreali and western nations all equip there soldiers with NBC suits, rendering the effect of chemical weapons minimal. The flipside of that question, why don't Israel and America care, if Iran has chemical weapons.

yes they do

well apart from Iran, western intelligence services have given varying estimations from 6 months to 10 years

yes and so can anthrax and any number of chemical agents iran has had for decades ..yet they havent used them ...but according to you and others like you it's not a likelihood it's a certainty ....so why havent they used them before?

If they used Chemical weapons against Isreal they may kill 1000 people, afterwards the west will definatley invade, however if they nuke Iran and kill 100,000+, then tell the west if they invade, they'll do it again, it's entirely different.

hmmm lets see, defying international law, invading a nation without provocation, decades worth of coups, death squads, propping up despots, and the only historical use of the world's most devestating weapon ....yes I can see how the US isnt a threat to anyone

The USA has no intention of wiping anybody off the face of the earth, they have had the weapons 60 years, and haven't used them, since the true extent of the dangers of nuclear power were discovered (albeit after Nagaski and Hiroshima)

 

[Mr Stabby]

I am angry whenever someone says Iraq is irrelevant. I am trying to state a historic event to support my idea. This is a comparison. There will be no discussing if you asy the past events are irrelevant since we cannot just talking unseen future. If you say war in Iraq is irrelevant, I will say you are just trying to blindly ban all the ideas against you.

explain why America Invading Iraq, makes Iran harmless, then

Back to the main theme, I still arguing that the USA should not take military action against Iran. Though the president of Iran sid he would wipe Israel of the map, this is only what he SAID. Words mean nothing. You may want to say Hitler did the same thing. This does not prove Iran will take the same path. Say, when a child says he want to kill a teacher. Then the child does so in the other day. Does it mean that we have to arrest all the children who say the word "kill"? I thought not. To conclude, we cannot determine whether a person or a country is quilty before it does anything wrong.

Ahh, I see Ahmadinejad is only a small child, he doesn't know any better, better send him to his room then

 

[dream431ca]

... And shunned the U.N.

It appears we are doing the same. What role models we are!
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...L18389434_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-USA-TORTURE.xml

Ya. Too bad your president became as low as the terrotists by shunning the UN himself..sorry bud..but the US looks like the dumbass here.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

That doesn't mean you get to invade him.

Course, that does'nt mean anyone gets to invade us either.

Ya. Too bad your president became as low as the terrotists by shunning the UN himself..sorry bud..but the US looks like the dumbass here.

Can we devoid our future discussions of personal barbs and arm chair general ambition? I think that sweeping generalizations have no place on a forum were people are attempting at civilized debate.